Sunshine delayed is sunshine denied

Here is why Iowa lawmakers need to act to ensure government is more accountable to its taxpayers

Davenport City Hall. (Photo courtesy of the City of Davenport)

DAYS REMOVED FROM the winter solstice, when Iowa’s nights are the longest, we have another example of the absence of sunshine in Iowa government. And this example shows why the Legislature has much to do about openness and accountability when it convenes on January 12.

A court decision last week with ties to the collapse in May 2023 of an apartment building in Davenport highlights the urgent need for legislative action. The case involves more than the public’s right to know, considering that three people died in the collapse and rescue workers needed to amputate a survivor’s leg to free her from the rubble.

Before the collapse, tenants and community activists raised concerns to Davenport officials about the structural integrity of the six-story building located across the street from City Hall. But city leaders moved slowly, even a few hours before the tragedy when a passing masonry worker noticed a bulging rear wall and called the fire department.

The officials’ lack of urgency to those complaints became a political issue in that year’s city election. Davenport’s mayor and City Council openly defended the city staff. But in late summer, the city attorney negotiated lucrative separation payments to the city administrator and two of her administrative assistants in exchange for their resignations.

All the while, these officials kept Davenport residents in the dark — and accountability suffered.


THE PUBLIC DID NOT LEARN the details of the settlements with City Administrator Corrin Spiegel and assistants Tiffany Thorndike and Samantha Torres — $1.6 million for Spiegel, $157,000 for Thorndike, $140,500 for Torres — until after the city election.

Corrin Spiegel

The City Council put off voting to ratify those agreements until a public council meeting on December 13, 2023 — more than two months after Spiegel signed her agreement and more than four months after Thorndike and Torres signed theirs.

A local resident, Dr. Allen Diercks, later sued the city, challenging how the City Council and city attorney managed the three employees’ departures and the $1.9 million in payouts to them.

A Scott County District Court judge ruled last week that Davenport largely complied with the letter of Iowa’s open meetings law even though City Hall did not inform residents and failed to meet what the judge called the public’s reasonable expectations for transparency.

That gap the court described between expectations and legality matters — and it should concern every Iowa taxpayer, whether they live in Davenport, Duncombe or Defiance.

The judge concluded the City Council technically satisfied Iowa law, because the eventual public ratification of the settlements, even four months after the fact, was enough to stay within the bounds of the open meetings act.

But legality is not the same as legitimacy.

Here is one payment to Corrin Spiegel as part of the City of Davenport’s settlement.

WHEN OFFICIALS DECIDE to spend nearly $2 million in public money behind closed doors, in one-on-one communication with the city attorney, or by a “let me know if you disagree” email from the attorney — and the public does not learn about those decisions until months later, after an election — trust in our democracy erodes. Even if the process passes legal muster.

The problem is not that Davenport settled with the three employees to facilitate their departures from City Hall. Governments often settle employment disputes to avoid costly litigation and the uncertainty that a lawsuit brings. The problem is when and how the public learned about all of this and the efforts officials took to hide and delay the availability of the facts.

In this case, the city and the three employees signed the settlement agreements before the City Council publicly ratified them. By the time residents were officially informed, the deals were already done — and the city election had already come and gone without giving the public the ability to make an informed vote about retaining the incumbent officeholders.

The “ratification” was symbolic at best. The outcome was locked in, and meaningful public accountability was impossible.


WHILE ONE JUDGE now has stated that a sequence like this can comply with the minimum requirements of state law, that process undermines the spirit of open government. Transparency is not just about whether a vote eventually happens in public. It is about whether citizens have a legitimate opportunity to understand, question, and influence decisions before they are made and their tax money is spent.

The judge acknowledged that “the optics are poor” in the way Davenport officials acted. That observation should not be dismissed nor forgotten.

Optics matter because they shape public confidence. When residents see large settlements negotiated privately, executed quietly, and only later acknowledged in a public meeting, they understandably wonder whether openness is being treated as a legal obstacle rather than a democratic value.

The decision also highlights a structural weakness in the public meetings law and the need for the Legislature to provide clarity and vision. The public meeting law allows broad discretion for closed sessions involving litigation. But this case appears to hold that it does not require timely public disclosure once settlements are reached and before agreements are signed and paid.

Nor does the current law seem to require that city councils publicly vote to authorize settlement authority before agreements are signed. This case shows how that gap can create long delays between action and accountability.


THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD FIX the meetings law and make it mandatory that all settlements must be ratified with a public vote as soon as the parties have reached an agreement and before money changes hands.

To require less disrespects the public’s role as the ultimate stakeholder. Taxpayers pay for these agreements. They deserve timely notice, not after-the-fact explanations.

The Scott County court has spoken on what the law appears to allow. Now it is up to elected officials — and lawmakers — to do what the public deserves.

To restore and maintain the public trust, sunlight must come sooner, not months later, when the ink is dry and the money gone. The days need to get longer; we need more sunshine.

About this column

Stray Thoughts is a member of the Iowa Writers Collaborative. Please check out the work of about 75 Iowa writers and consider subscribing. Also, the collaborative partners with the Iowa Capital Dispatch, which provides hard-hitting news along with selected commentary. Please consider making a donation to support its important work, too.